Choosing odd stories

Selecting stories for print or web is much more art than science. But it is a part of an editor's job.
Stories are chosen for a variety of reasons such as interest, intrigue, relevance and sometimes oddity. Such was the case with the Religion News feature currently posted at the Baptists Today web site.
The story is about how some pagans have found a home within the most liberal branch of Quakers. The writer notes that the three other branches are explicitly Christian.
But this one small branch of Friends seems to make room for the odd combination of Pagan-Quakers.
Pagan rituals are mixed with Quaker traditions like pastor-less meetings. (Which suggests something more significant than the pastor is missing in the worship experiences.)
Historically, Quakers were seekers before seeker-sensitive was cool. And a welcoming environment for those in search of the divine is commendable in any religious tradition.
However, I've often been critical of Christians — especially Baptists — who keep narrowing theological boundaries. But on the other hand, it does seem that Christians of any denominational tradition should at least share the historic confession that Jesus is Lord.
(Of course some of us have been called Pagan-Baptists by fellow Baptists who think we don't believe enough of the stuff they do.)

Who’s afraid of the big, bad ‘them’?

It is interesting to see how differently Baptists can react to the growing religious and political pluralism in our midst. Some do so with such fear.
In his April 24 editorial (“Dare to be the ‘bad guys’ of the future”) in The Christian Index, newspaper of the Georgia Baptist Convention, editor Gerald Harris paints a fearful picture of America — with public education, secular government and tolerant attitudes making life hard on good ol' evangelical Christians.
“Be prepared to endure the slings and arrows of those who are tolerant of everything but manifestly intolerant of Bible-believing, Christ-loving, soul-winning Christians,” he warns.
Leaning on Josh McDowell for support, Harris concludes that evangelical Christians are the “good guys” who are becoming “the bad guys in the United States.”
This bunker mentality produces an “us vs. them” perspective that makes life into an ongoing battle against those who are different.
If evangelicals are deemed “the good guys,” then what does that make my Jewish neighbor, my Roman Catholic coworker or my nonreligious in-law?
Is tolerance of others really worse than designating those who do not share one’s narrow faith commitments and corresponding political perspectives as “bad guys?”
Harris, like others who share this reaction to pluralism, gives the false notion that American evangelicals are powerless victims who get picked on by bullies. With our constitutional guarantees of religious liberty this is an affront to those in the world who genuinely suffer for their faith convictions.
Though evangelical Christians dominate the airwaves and fill political positions from local school boards to the Oval Office, the fear does not wane.
Harris warns: “[W]e may be only one presidential election away” from having a leader who won’t call the nation to prayer during a national tragedy. (Apparently, the president is to be our spiritual leader — a pastoral, as well as political, role.)
However, the biggest problem with “us” (good guys) vs. “them” (bad guys) is that it creates only two options for how to relate to those who are different: Convert them (so they become like us) or conquer them (so they won't pick on us).
Designating oneself and those just like oneself as “the good guys” — and marinating that arrogance in a fear of those who are different — can only lead to the devaluation of others. They can only be seen as either a threat or a target.
Such an attitude seems amazingly at odds with how Jesus related to the wide variety of people he encountered. He seemed more concerned with offering grace, mercy and healing than dividing people into two groups and handing out white and black hats.

Rescue the perishing

The most hostile letters I have ever received as an editor had nothing to do with hot-button ethical, religious or political issues. They were in response to a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek column a decade ago about how some people treat their dogs like humans.
The impetus for the column was my learning that some friends had turned down a free trip to Hawaii (a company award for a good sales year) out of fear that their dog would miss them too much. I couldn't imagine skipping the chance to sit on a Maui beach, while drinking something cold and eating chocolate-covered macadamia nuts, out of fear that Fido might have separation anxiety.
The negative response from dog owners to my wisecracks was overwhelming. One 83-year-old woman said I should be fired — or worse.
She loved her two dogs as much as she did the two daughters she had raised, she assured me. (The woman added that her dogs sleep in the garage every night — but I didn't dare ask about the daughters' sleeping arrangements during their upbringing.)
But since I had not been a dog owner since my teen years, there was little to offer in defense. You would have thought I was Michael Vick.
However, that all changed as of yesterday. The Grinch-editor's heart must have grown three sizes over recent years.
After months of persisting requests from our younger daughter, we adopted lively and lovable Spencer from Save A Pet in tiny Bolingbroke, Ga.
No dog has ever been more warmly welcomed into a new home. Spencer is getting the best of hugs, food, exercise and security.
But just in case I win a free trip to Hawaii, a list of local dogsitters is also being compiled.
I think even Spencer would understand — especially if we brought a bright floral shirt to him upon our return.

Papal authority and ours

Pope Benedict XVI spent his 81st birthday in our nation's capital yesterday. He received lots of warm wishes from the faithful who gathered to see and hear him.
I wish him well on his mission of peace and hope.
Such papal visits always remind me, however, of how differently Roman Catholics and Baptists view church authority and polity.
I've known some Baptist leaders over the years who thought they were infallible in matters of faith and morals — but such was not formally bestowed on them. And Southern Baptist Convention leaders keep sticking their noses into the businesses of local congregations. But local church autonomy is a long-held Baptist principle.
My hope is that we Baptists, along with all other Americans, make the pope feel welcome. And as a "quote collector," his visit has given me some fodder from our nation's top two leaders.
Yesterday, President Bush responded in his Texas drawl to the pontiff with: "Thank you, your Holiness, awesome speech."
Then Vice President Dick Cheney told the Washington Radio and Television correspondents last night: "I spent the morning with one infallible authority; now I get to spend evening with a thousand of them."
Yep, the truth is all of us need reminders of our human fallibility and a large dose of the corresponding humility.

Whatever happened to KJV only?

An article from Christian Post notes that the "New International Version of the Bible is by far the most preferred translation of the Scripture, according to a new survey of U.S. evangelical leaders."
The 30-year-old NIV garnered more than 65 percent of the votes from directors of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).
For many, such news of the NIV's popularity among conservative Christians might cause a yawn. But they have not seen what many of us witnessed over the past several decades.
During my childhood in the'60s, every Bible in my home and home church was an Authorized King James Version. In fact, we didn't know others existed.
Then in the late '60s, the contemporary Today's English Version showed up under the title of "Good News for Modern Man." The gray paperback New Testament read more clearly and had clever stickmen as illustrations.
The plain language in the TEV surprised those of us who were fully convinced that God, the prophets, Jesus and Paul all spoke the King's English. Even the more spiritual leaders of our church prayed to God with "Thees" and "Thous."
The paraphrased Living Bible came on the scene as well in 1971. Then the NIV was published in 1978.
About that time, as a gift, I received a "Parallel Bible" with four side-by-side translations of the same passages.
Today bookstores, homes and churches are filled with a wide array of Bible translations. But such was not always the case.
I remember the times my pastor would have us read a passage in unison — knowing that only the KJV was in our hands. In most churches today, such an exercise would sound like speaking in tongues.
However, a few KJV-only advocates still hang around the remote edges of conservative Christianity. They insist that other translations are dangerous.
They particularly like to take shots at the TEV, whose chief translator Robert Bratcher once pointed out the folly of using unbiblical codewords like "inerrant" and "infallible" to describe the Bible's authority.
One critic said: "Dr. Bratcher heads the class of the most heretical apostates to ever touch a mainstream Bible translation." At Baptists Today , we just think of him as a longtime subscriber from Chapel Hill, N.C.
My parents and church leaders taught me great respect for the Bible including never placing another book on top of the Bible in a stack. Those Bibles were always the King James Version.
Now I have more translations of the Bible than can be quickly counted. I read several when considering a text.
While I don't have a strong preference in translations, there are some statements that have more meaning to me in the familiar KJV of my childhood. Such is case when Jesus said (Matthew 11:28): "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

A minority at home

My minority status in our home is something I generally embrace. However, the three-to-one female-to-male ratio can have its challenges.
Over dinner last Thursday, I was feeling a little left out. The extended conversation was about various salon services — especially as related to the care of fingernails and toenails.
Glancing at my own hands, abused by recent yard work, I decided to join the conversation.
"What would it cost me to get a manicure?" I asked sincerely.
Our high school freshman daughter quickly responded: "Twenty-one dollars and your masculinity."
I'm learning that some conversations don't need my input.

Joys and burdens of analytical thinking

Over the past nearly 15 years as a second-career journalist, I've wondered how I ended up in this particular vocation. I did not study journalism or chart a course for myself that including this kind of work.
I have now done this work slightly longer than I served in campus ministry.
But then, I wonder about a lot of things.
While preparing my coffee this morning, I wondered: "Half-and-Half, half of what and half of what?" (I'll look that one up when my writing and editing tasks are done today.)
My educational focus was on religion and philosophy, psychology, and theology. Such pursuits are fitting for those who warmly embrace inquiry.
Rather than a journalist and/or a preacher, I may be more of a writing/speaking philosopher. But then, what is journalism (another inquiry!) but a combination of inquiry and communication? The same could be said of preaching.
Blogs and Internet forums often attract inquiring minds. That's what makes them (mostly) enjoyable. Those with no interest or skills in critical analysis and effective communication rarely engage or stay.
However, ongoing analysis can be both a blessing and a curse — for even putting cream in coffee becomes a point of inquiry.
And I'm afraid there is something in the genes.
One of my daughter's asked: "Where do you hyphenate PETSMART?"
Good question.

Avoiding the 'digital-era sweatshop'

"Religion is part of the explosion of online communications," said Douglas Gould, president of the New York-based communications firm Douglas Gould and Company. He notes that 20 percent of the country's 8 million blogs address religion.
With so many cyberspace options, a word of thanks is due to the faithful few who visit here. The opportunity to share ideas in this way is enjoyable and different from opinion sharing in the print media.It is doubtful I would have jumped into blogging last year without the encouragement (make that coercion) of online editor Bruce Gourley and contributing editor Tony Cartledge. But I enjoy this forum — even though Tony is more faithful.
Our goal is to post at least six times a week. I don't always meet my weekend obligation — or meet it on time.
In addition to being executive editor of Baptists Today, I assume the weekend titles of assistant coach for the 10-and-under Fireflies girls fast-pitch softball team and interim preaching minister for Mt. Zion Baptist Church. So blogging has to be squeezed in there somewhere between those duties.
The wonderful benefits of the Internet bring challenges as well. One is avoiding the temptation to be "on" for 24/7. Bruce forwarded a New York Times
article about the health crises some avid bloggers are experiencing.
The writer calls the Internet a "digital-era sweatshop" for some.
While most of us are not so consumed by this emerging communications venue, there is still a need for warnings.
Internet engagement is a matter of balance, or stewardship if you prefer.
The separation between work and personal time can get blurred. For me, it happens when I feel the need to send "just one email" or "check on my blog." And then discover I've spent two hours away from family with work-related stuff that could have waited until morning.
Balance, balance, balance.It's needed in blogging as well as every other area of our lives.

Cheers for good lay leaders

As the Board of Directors of Baptists Today meets today, and is joined this evening by many others to celebrate the 25th anniversary of this uniquely independent news journal, I am reminded again of the great contributions of dedicated lay persons.
Our board is comprised primarily of lay leaders. Board chair Winnie Williams is a leader in the First Baptist Church of Clemson, S.C. Vice chair Gary Eubanks is a layman in the First Baptist Church of Marietta, Ga.
Likewise, much of the financial support that enables Baptists Today to carry out its mission comes from the generous hands of supportive lay persons. In addition to their financial support, so many active lay persons also affirm and encourage our work throughout the years.
There is much on my mind as we go into this big event in Atlanta tonight — but one thought is of gratitude for those many rock-solid, caring, and dependable lay leaders whose strong support is always there.

Still 'getting back to evangelism'

Proponents of the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention — that began in 1979 — often claimed that Southern Baptists needed their efforts to “get back to evangelism.”
Ironically, their political maneuvering throughout the '80s did irreparable damage to Bold Mission Thrust — the ambitious, and admittedly arrogant, effort to take the Gospel to every person on Earth.
Now, many years after gaining full control of the denominational structure, there is still a cry to “get back to evangelism.” It must be a hard course to navigate.
In a Baptist Press column, SBC President Frank Page noted that a new 10-year evangelistic strategy would be forthcoming this summer when the North American Mission Board report is given at the annual SBC meeting.
Page said, in part: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see our baptism numbers turn around? The reasons for decline are many and varied. Part of the reason is because of the society's increasing negativity toward the church. Part of the reason is our own lethargy, laziness and waste of energy in fighting the wrong battles and the wrong people. Turning the situation around cannot happen easily nor even quickly. However, I am convinced that God does want the situation to turn around!”
Who knows what the latest effort — to “get back to evangelism” — will be. One suggestion: Stop alienating virtually every segment of the population from women to Jews to Disney-goers — who are not exactly like you.